That's absolutely correct. These lawsuits have a very sound basis in law. Purveyors of "travel stuff" involved in interstate commerce have a very high burden to meet and cannot racially discriminate. There is no need for state action in these kinds of cases. The post suggesting this will be a tough case is incorrect with respect to the law - however, it may be tough to get courts and juries to follow the law given the unfortunate high degreee of tolerance for discrimination against Arab Americans in the wake of 9/11.

As legal authority for my statement,

See: Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (379 US 241) (US Supreme Court, 1964)

Rule of law:

"The power of Congress to promote interstate commerce also includes the power to regulate the local incidents thereof, including local activities in both the states of origin and destination, which might have a substantial and harmful effect upon that commerce."

Pertinent facts:

"Title 11 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 201 (a), prohibits discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin in any place of public accommodation which, as further defined in the Act, includes a motel having more than five rooms for rent. Only those motels affecting commerce were subject to injunctive action pursuant to the Act.

The Heart of Atlanta Motel (P), with more than 216 rooms, was situated within ready access to interstate and state highways. The Motel (P) solicited patronage through various national advertising media and maintained over 50 billboards and highway signs within the state. It accepted convention trade from outside Georgia. Seventy-five percent of its registered guests were from out of state.

Prior to the Act's enactment, the Motel (P) had followed a practice of refusing to rent to Negroes.The Motel (P) brought a declaratory judgment action against the United States (D) to have it determined that the Motel (P) was not within the provisions of Title 11 and could continue to refuse service to Negroes.

A three-judge court sustained the validity of the Act and issued a permanent injunction against the Motel (P), which appealed. The United States Supreme Court reversed."